trmnl_upload_plugin_setting_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine extra context: accepted formats (PNG/JPEG/WebP), the encoding requirement, and an explicit warning against multipart form data. It stops short of saying whether an upload replaces an existing image, which would matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The payload format and content types come first, followed by the endpoint and a mutation warning — good front-loading. The closing boilerplate ('Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.') is generic padding that partially duplicates annotation hints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers format and transport well but omits size limits, overwrite semantics, and what the response returns. Those gaps leave an agent unable to predict the effect of a second upload to the same setting.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (33%), but all three properties do carry inline descriptions, so the schema is not silent. The description adds real meaning about how to populate the body (base64 JSON vs raw body with an image Content-Type) and ties the id path segment to the plugin_settings endpoint, but the 'profile' parameter is never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload an image for a webhook_image plugin') and gives the underlying endpoint POST /api/plugin_settings/{id}/image. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling trmnl_set_plugin_setting_featured_image or trmnl_upload_plugin_setting_archive, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'webhook_image' qualifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'for a webhook_image plugin' phrase implies the applicable context, and the description is clear about transport format, but it never says when to choose this over the featured-image or archive upload siblings, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the boilerplate 'Run only within the user-authorized scope.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.